Neurodemocracy: Self-Organization of the Embodied Mind
Access status:
USyd Access
Type
ThesisThesis type
Doctor of PhilosophyAuthor/s
Huang, Ta LunAbstract
My thesis contributes to a better understanding of how self-organized control works. I begin by analyzing the control problem. I argue that the two prominent solutions offered by classical cognitive sciences (centralized control with rich commands) and embodied cognitive sciences ...
See moreMy thesis contributes to a better understanding of how self-organized control works. I begin by analyzing the control problem. I argue that the two prominent solutions offered by classical cognitive sciences (centralized control with rich commands) and embodied cognitive sciences (distributed control with simple commands) are merely two positions in a two-dimensional solution space. I outline two alternative positions: distributed control with rich commands and centralized control with simple commands. My goal is to develop a hybrid account that combines the latter alternative position and that of the embodied cognitive sciences. Before developing my account, I discuss the challenges of the first three. This discussion results in the criteria for successful control mechanisms. Then, I develop my account through analyzing neuroscientific models of decision-making and control with the theoretical lenses provided by formal decision and social choice theories. I contend that neural processes can be modeled as a collective of agents, and neural self-organization is analogous to democratic self-governance. In particular, I show that the basal ganglia contribute to the production of thoughts and behaviors through implementing “democratic" procedures. Unlike the Fodorian central system—which is a micro-managing “neural commander-in-chief”—the basal ganglia are a “central election commission.” They delegate control of habitual behaviors to distributed control mechanisms. Yet, when novel problems arise, they engage and determine the result on the basis of simple information (the votes) from across the system with the principles of neurodemocracy, and control with simple commands of inhibition and disinhibition. By managing the wisdom-of-the-crowd effect, these democratic processes enhance the intelligence and coherence of the mind’s final "collective" decisions. I end by defending this account from criticisms and showing that it meets the criteria for successful solution.
See less
See moreMy thesis contributes to a better understanding of how self-organized control works. I begin by analyzing the control problem. I argue that the two prominent solutions offered by classical cognitive sciences (centralized control with rich commands) and embodied cognitive sciences (distributed control with simple commands) are merely two positions in a two-dimensional solution space. I outline two alternative positions: distributed control with rich commands and centralized control with simple commands. My goal is to develop a hybrid account that combines the latter alternative position and that of the embodied cognitive sciences. Before developing my account, I discuss the challenges of the first three. This discussion results in the criteria for successful control mechanisms. Then, I develop my account through analyzing neuroscientific models of decision-making and control with the theoretical lenses provided by formal decision and social choice theories. I contend that neural processes can be modeled as a collective of agents, and neural self-organization is analogous to democratic self-governance. In particular, I show that the basal ganglia contribute to the production of thoughts and behaviors through implementing “democratic" procedures. Unlike the Fodorian central system—which is a micro-managing “neural commander-in-chief”—the basal ganglia are a “central election commission.” They delegate control of habitual behaviors to distributed control mechanisms. Yet, when novel problems arise, they engage and determine the result on the basis of simple information (the votes) from across the system with the principles of neurodemocracy, and control with simple commands of inhibition and disinhibition. By managing the wisdom-of-the-crowd effect, these democratic processes enhance the intelligence and coherence of the mind’s final "collective" decisions. I end by defending this account from criticisms and showing that it meets the criteria for successful solution.
See less
Date
2017-01-01Licence
The author retains copyright of this thesis. It may only be used for the purposes of research and study. It must not be used for any other purposes and may not be transmitted or shared with others without prior permission.Faculty/School
Faculty of Science, School of History and Philosophy of ScienceAwarding institution
The University of SydneyShare